Batis 85 1.8 vs Sony 85 1.8

Can be seen in FE 90/2.8 lensrentals testing in 1:2 vs. infinity. I would not expect difference this big (the 40 & 50 lp/mm show a world of difference in 1:2 vs infinity for FE 90/2.8) in a non-macro lens, but it is a good illustration of how focus distance matters.

The FE 90/2.8 is a superb demonstration of how good you can make a lens by optimizing it for what it is meant for, in this case macro where it is an absolute world-beater. It also shows that Sony is very good at doing this. To me it looks like they optimized the FE 85/1.8 somewhat to portrait distances (makes a world of sense since that is what 85's are used a lot) and it seems due to this it degrades a bit in longer distances. A compromize I'd personally make to an 85 (if one must be made for example due to cost reasons) too.

tn1krr said:

Can be seen in FE 90/2.8 lensrentals testing in 1:2 vs. infinity. I would not expect difference this big (the 40 & 50 lp/mm show a world of difference in 1:2 vs infinity for FE 90/2.8) in a non-macro lens, but it is a good illustration of how focus distance matters.

The FE 90/2.8 is a superb demonstration of how good you can make a lens by optimizing it for what it is meant for, in this case macro where it is an absolute world-beater. It also shows that Sony is very good at doing this. To me it looks like they optimized the FE 85/1.8 somewhat to portrait distances (makes a world of sense since that is what 85's are used a lot) and it seems due to this it degrades a bit in longer distances. A compromize I'd personally make to an 85 (if one must be made for example due to cost reasons) too.

Click to expand...

So the DXO and Optical Limits tests would be better suited for traditional portrait focal lengths like 85mm?

Den

DenImage said:

tn1krr said:

Can be seen in FE 90/2.8 lensrentals testing in 1:2 vs. infinity. I would not expect difference this big (the 40 & 50 lp/mm show a world of difference in 1:2 vs infinity for FE 90/2.8) in a non-macro lens, but it is a good illustration of how focus distance matters.

The FE 90/2.8 is a superb demonstration of how good you can make a lens by optimizing it for what it is meant for, in this case macro where it is an absolute world-beater. It also shows that Sony is very good at doing this. To me it looks like they optimized the FE 85/1.8 somewhat to portrait distances (makes a world of sense since that is what 85's are used a lot) and it seems due to this it degrades a bit in longer distances. A compromize I'd personally make to an 85 (if one must be made for example due to cost reasons) too.

Click to expand...

So the DXO and Optical Limits tests would be better suited for traditional portrait focal lengths like 85mm?

Click to expand...

In my opinion yes. Since we have no information about how dxo handles copy variation I personally tend to look for "consensus" of several imatest based tests and dxo and compare that to lensrentals OLAF tests that give us data that eliminates statistical outliers in copy variation.

Whereas for example with UWA lenses the OLAF infinity tests represent data that more closely matches the way that lenses are most often used.

Like said, it would be very nice to see near vs. infinity focus tests from OLAF with non-macro lenses, but unfortunately we do not have that at the moment.

tn1krr said:

DenImage said:

tn1krr said:

Can be seen in FE 90/2.8 lensrentals testing in 1:2 vs. infinity. I would not expect difference this big (the 40 & 50 lp/mm show a world of difference in 1:2 vs infinity for FE 90/2.8) in a non-macro lens, but it is a good illustration of how focus distance matters.

The FE 90/2.8 is a superb demonstration of how good you can make a lens by optimizing it for what it is meant for, in this case macro where it is an absolute world-beater. It also shows that Sony is very good at doing this. To me it looks like they optimized the FE 85/1.8 somewhat to portrait distances (makes a world of sense since that is what 85's are used a lot) and it seems due to this it degrades a bit in longer distances. A compromize I'd personally make to an 85 (if one must be made for example due to cost reasons) too.

Click to expand...

So the DXO and Optical Limits tests would be better suited for traditional portrait focal lengths like 85mm?

Click to expand...

In my opinion yes. Since we have no information about how dxo handles copy variation I personally tend to look for "consensus" of several imatest based tests and dxo and compare that to lensrentals OLAF tests that give us data that eliminates statistical outliers in copy variation.

Whereas for example with UWA lenses the OLAF infinity tests represent data that more closely matches the way that lenses are most often used.

Like said, it would be very nice to see near vs. infinity focus tests from OLAF with non-macro lenses, but unfortunately we do not have that at the moment.

Click to expand...

I agree.

This disputes another post where another forum member (RubberDials) suggested to ignore the Optical Limits test results in favour of the Lens Rental results:

"I wouldn't bother with Klaus/optical limits if I were you"

Den

DenImage said:

tn1krr said:

DenImage said:

tn1krr said:

Can be seen in FE 90/2.8 lensrentals testing in 1:2 vs. infinity. I would not expect difference this big (the 40 & 50 lp/mm show a world of difference in 1:2 vs infinity for FE 90/2.8) in a non-macro lens, but it is a good illustration of how focus distance matters.

The FE 90/2.8 is a superb demonstration of how good you can make a lens by optimizing it for what it is meant for, in this case macro where it is an absolute world-beater. It also shows that Sony is very good at doing this. To me it looks like they optimized the FE 85/1.8 somewhat to portrait distances (makes a world of sense since that is what 85's are used a lot) and it seems due to this it degrades a bit in longer distances. A compromize I'd personally make to an 85 (if one must be made for example due to cost reasons) too.

Click to expand...

So the DXO and Optical Limits tests would be better suited for traditional portrait focal lengths like 85mm?

Click to expand...

In my opinion yes. Since we have no information about how dxo handles copy variation I personally tend to look for "consensus" of several imatest based tests and dxo and compare that to lensrentals OLAF tests that give us data that eliminates statistical outliers in copy variation.

Whereas for example with UWA lenses the OLAF infinity tests represent data that more closely matches the way that lenses are most often used.

Like said, it would be very nice to see near vs. infinity focus tests from OLAF with non-macro lenses, but unfortunately we do not have that at the moment.

Click to expand...

I agree.

This disputes another post where another forum member (RubberDials) suggested to ignore the Optical Limits test results in favour of the Lens Rental results:

"I wouldn't bother with Klaus/optical limits if I were you"

Click to expand...

I've been following lensrentals tests & blog (huge fan of their work, the blog is an absolute goldmine and huge contribution to photo community and to anyone wanting to learn more about lenses etc.) for a long time and I've never seen even Roger suggesting taking anything as gospel.

Even for portrait use to me OLAF tests increase in applicability for environmental full body portraits when compared to near-MFD face shots.

The key to me is understanding the difference of the tests and reflect the test data from different sources to one's personal intended use.

tn1krr said:

DenImage said:

tn1krr said:

DenImage said:

tn1krr said:

Can be seen in FE 90/2.8 lensrentals testing in 1:2 vs. infinity. I would not expect difference this big (the 40 & 50 lp/mm show a world of difference in 1:2 vs infinity for FE 90/2.8) in a non-macro lens, but it is a good illustration of how focus distance matters.

The FE 90/2.8 is a superb demonstration of how good you can make a lens by optimizing it for what it is meant for, in this case macro where it is an absolute world-beater. It also shows that Sony is very good at doing this. To me it looks like they optimized the FE 85/1.8 somewhat to portrait distances (makes a world of sense since that is what 85's are used a lot) and it seems due to this it degrades a bit in longer distances. A compromize I'd personally make to an 85 (if one must be made for example due to cost reasons) too.

Click to expand...

So the DXO and Optical Limits tests would be better suited for traditional portrait focal lengths like 85mm?

Click to expand...

In my opinion yes. Since we have no information about how dxo handles copy variation I personally tend to look for "consensus" of several imatest based tests and dxo and compare that to lensrentals OLAF tests that give us data that eliminates statistical outliers in copy variation.

Whereas for example with UWA lenses the OLAF infinity tests represent data that more closely matches the way that lenses are most often used.

Like said, it would be very nice to see near vs. infinity focus tests from OLAF with non-macro lenses, but unfortunately we do not have that at the moment.

Click to expand...

I agree.

This disputes another post where another forum member (RubberDials) suggested to ignore the Optical Limits test results in favour of the Lens Rental results:

"I wouldn't bother with Klaus/optical limits if I were you"

Click to expand...

I've been following lensrentals tests & blog (huge fan of their work, the blog is an absolute goldmine and huge contribution to photo community and to anyone wanting to learn more about lenses etc.) for a long time and I've never seen even Roger suggesting taking anything as gospel.

Even for portrait use to me OLAF tests increase in applicability for environmental full body portraits when compared to near-MFD face shots.

The key to me is understanding the difference of the tests and reflect the test data from different sources to one's personal intended use.

Click to expand...

I too utilise Lens Rentals as a resource for lens reviews, as well as a few others like DXO and Optical Limits. I certainly don't dismiss any of them over the other, which is the point.

Den

I don't understand the concern with sharpness, etc when shooting one handed street shots. It seems to me that camera movement and other things are going to distract much more from image quality than any perceived increase in sharpness gained from one lens over another. Maybe slow down and get a tripod. That will probably do a lot more for image quality!

Mintmint said:

I'm super undecided on which of these two lenses to get, the batis 85 or sony 85.

It pretty much comes down to weather sealing and OSS on the Batis. Is this worth about $500 more?

I will be shooting outdoors mostly. I also shoot at night. I don't tripod, I'm a run and gun shooter, doing street/travel type shots. If the OSS makes a big enough difference I will probably go with Batis. I think it could be super handy in low light/night photography?

I'm wondering how much IBIS combined with OSS will help with my style of photography, vs just having the IBIS with the A7III + Sony 85 1.8 combo....

Click to expand...

You nailed the important differences - But don't forget that these lenses have a different "character" which you will see on your pictures - Still up to you for deciding/choosing which pleases you best...


All the best,
Pedro

BBQue said:

IBIS plus OSS is definitely more effective than IBIS alone. Whether this difference is worth $500, only you can decide. Personally, I love the Batis.

PS: When you make that decision, keep in mind that the $500 is not your expense, it is only your out-of-pocket money. At some point you may sell the lens, and on the used market the Batis will fetch $400 to $500 more, so you get your money back. Then divide those $100 (or less) by the number of months you have used the lens, or the number of photos you took with it, and the usage expense becomes quite negligible. (That is how I justify my lens purchases to my wife, hahaha )

Click to expand...

You are a clever husband...

All the best,
Pedro

Mintmint said:

I'm super undecided on which of these two lenses to get, the batis 85 or sony 85.

It pretty much comes down to weather sealing and OSS on the Batis. Is this worth about $500 more?

I will be shooting outdoors mostly. I also shoot at night. I don't tripod, I'm a run and gun shooter, doing street/travel type shots. If the OSS makes a big enough difference I will probably go with Batis. I think it could be super handy in low light/night photography?

I'm wondering how much IBIS combined with OSS will help with my style of photography, vs just having the IBIS with the A7III + Sony 85 1.8 combo....

Click to expand...

If your concern is image quality, everything Ive seen and read has said they're virtually identical in image quality. Maybe you'll see slightly better color and flair reduction on the Batis, but its going to be subtle.

RubberDials said:

DenImage said:

RubberDials said:

Here's a link to Lens Rentals testing of the FE85. (I wouldn't bother with Klaus/optical limits if I were you)

Click to expand...

Why, because only the Lens Rental's test supports your purchase of the Batis lens???

DXO also rated the Sony FE 85mm f1.8 better than the Batis, so we shouldn't bother with them either???

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Comp...8-Sony-FE-on-Sony-A7R-II__1818_1035_1536_1035

Den

Click to expand...

Are these rhetorical questions??? Or do you want me to answer them???

DenImage wrote:

That's up to you.

You have stated that we should ignore other reviews and only accept the Lens Rental bench test result, implying that other reviews are wrong without substantiating your claim.

Den

Click to expand...

They're not rhetorical questions then.

First of all you need to think more carefully about what you write. I said:

"For me the principal benefits of the Batis are the higher resolution and better flare control."

I didn't recommend that the OP chose the Batis, I explained why I preferred it and then gave detailed reasons why.

I did not imply 'other reviews are wrong' - I would not use this kind of language - and I didn't even mention DXOmark - you did. I only said 'I wouldn't bother with Photozone if I were you'.

There are two parts to lens testing; collecting the data and interpreting it. Both have to be done well. It doesn't matter how well someone collects data if they can't present it properly. DXOmark' perceptual megapixel rating is a case in point. They end up giving the impression to people like you that the FE85 is a better lens than the 85GM.

Similarly with Photozone - you don't realise that the Batis tested better in their review than the FE85 - presumably because you're going by his ludicrous 'star rating' at the end of the test rather than the LW/PH numbers he records.

When you buy a lens you're not getting the lens that was tested in the review, so unless the lens has no sample variation the test is an approximation of what you'll get. Neither Photozone/Optical limits test more than one sample, which makes their tests anecdotal in my view. Couple that with their user friendly but technically worthless star and perceptual megapixel ratings and I don't think they are much use to people looking to buy a lens.

Both also use Imatest, which is sensor dependent. With Imatest you are also testing the whole sensor stack including all optical filters and picking up any noise from the signal processing of the sensor as they are all in the chain, although they have nothing to do with the optics of the lens. Also the resolution limits of the sensor are effectively the resolution limits of the optics.

Lens Rentals - as well as testing the glass only - tests ten samples and averages the curves. They also provide sample variation graphs so their tests give you the best possible idea of how your lens will perform. They also repair lenses and are more likely to know if a lens is damaged or faulty.

The crucial finding of the Lens Rental MTFs is the high contrast at 50lp/pm on the Batis and the 85GM. This makes those lenses more useful for future, denser sensors.

Dan_168 said:

Roses said:

Dan_168 said:

Mintmint said:

I'm super undecided on which of these two lenses to get, the batis 85 or sony 85.

It pretty much comes down to weather sealing and OSS on the Batis. Is this worth about $500 more?

I will be shooting outdoors mostly. I also shoot at night. I don't tripod, I'm a run and gun shooter, doing street/travel type shots. If the OSS makes a big enough difference I will probably go with Batis. I think it could be super handy in low light/night photography?

I'm wondering how much IBIS combined with OSS will help with my style of photography, vs just having the IBIS with the A7III + Sony 85 1.8 combo....

Click to expand...

This topic has been discussed so much here and everywhere, first of all, I am a 85GM owner, so I am not trying to justify my purchase and" defending" any of those lens here but purely my personal opinion.

Between the two, I would go or the FE 85 1.8, The Batis is nice but it's not worth the extra $$$, also I really don't like the strong "Cat'sEye" bokeh effect when shooting against strong light source, some people are perfectly fine with it but it's really annoying to my own eyes, also the FE 85 has a focus button and AF/MF button on the lens, really handy, OSS is not useful for me at all, one I have that on the body, two I hardly even urn it on, the way I use my 85mm lens really doesn't give me any benefits. but if that's important for you then the choice is obvious.

Since I like the Bokeh from the 85GM much better than these two so I went with the GM, but even if I don't own the GM, I would still go with the FE 1.8, I have nothing against Zeiss and I own 7 Zeiss lenses, just I found the FE 85 1.8 fit me better than the Batis 85, for some reason I am just not a fan of the entire Batis line,I sold my Batis 18 and 25 a while back too, again, just personal preference thing.

Click to expand...

GM 85 also has cat's eye bokeh. It's a physics thing with fast lenses shot wide open.

Click to expand...

Well, shot both and the Batis is has significantly more, that's simple fact if you ask anyone who own both. I guess it all comes down to how much is to much, again, a personal preference thing.

Click to expand...

Some also love the look of cat's eye bokeh. I am one of them. I find cat's eyes more pleasing and interesting than circular globs of out-of-focus highlights.

Mintmint said:

I'm super undecided on which of these two lenses to get, the batis 85 or sony 85.

It pretty much comes down to weather sealing and OSS on the Batis. Is this worth about $500 more?

I will be shooting outdoors mostly. I also shoot at night. I don't tripod, I'm a run and gun shooter, doing street/travel type shots. If the OSS makes a big enough difference I will probably go with Batis. I think it could be super handy in low light/night photography?

I'm wondering how much IBIS combined with OSS will help with my style of photography, vs just having the IBIS with the A7III + Sony 85 1.8 combo....

Click to expand...

As I see that quite a few people here are into lens testing, I wanted to share my experience with doing the zeiss target testing of the corners with a Sony 85 1.8.

Doing wall tests I saw at 1.8 unusually dark and slightly smeared corners in the upper end of the frame. Initially I was going to return the lens as decentered. When I did the zeiss star tests and sent them to Jim Kasson, he pointed out that my lens looked pretty good but that the darkening was probably caused by the very fast shutter speed (1.8 in daylight) and my having EFSC turned on.

He was right, I repeated the test, and the upper corners brightened - and also got visibly sharper (no explanation for that yet).

Here's his link

https://blog.kasson.com/lens-screening-testing/examples/good-85-mm-ff-lens/

BBQue said:

Dan_168 said:

Roses said:

Dan_168 said:

Mintmint said:

I'm super undecided on which of these two lenses to get, the batis 85 or sony 85.

It pretty much comes down to weather sealing and OSS on the Batis. Is this worth about $500 more?

I will be shooting outdoors mostly. I also shoot at night. I don't tripod, I'm a run and gun shooter, doing street/travel type shots. If the OSS makes a big enough difference I will probably go with Batis. I think it could be super handy in low light/night photography?

I'm wondering how much IBIS combined with OSS will help with my style of photography, vs just having the IBIS with the A7III + Sony 85 1.8 combo....

Click to expand...

This topic has been discussed so much here and everywhere, first of all, I am a 85GM owner, so I am not trying to justify my purchase and" defending" any of those lens here but purely my personal opinion.

Between the two, I would go or the FE 85 1.8, The Batis is nice but it's not worth the extra $$$, also I really don't like the strong "Cat'sEye" bokeh effect when shooting against strong light source, some people are perfectly fine with it but it's really annoying to my own eyes, also the FE 85 has a focus button and AF/MF button on the lens, really handy, OSS is not useful for me at all, one I have that on the body, two I hardly even urn it on, the way I use my 85mm lens really doesn't give me any benefits. but if that's important for you then the choice is obvious.

Since I like the Bokeh from the 85GM much better than these two so I went with the GM, but even if I don't own the GM, I would still go with the FE 1.8, I have nothing against Zeiss and I own 7 Zeiss lenses, just I found the FE 85 1.8 fit me better than the Batis 85, for some reason I am just not a fan of the entire Batis line,I sold my Batis 18 and 25 a while back too, again, just personal preference thing.

Click to expand...

GM 85 also has cat's eye bokeh. It's a physics thing with fast lenses shot wide open.

Click to expand...

Well, shot both and the Batis is has significantly more, that's simple fact if you ask anyone who own both. I guess it all comes down to how much is to much, again, a personal preference thing.

Click to expand...

Some also love the look of cat's eye bokeh. I am one of them. I find cat's eyes more pleasing and interesting than circular globs of out-of-focus highlights.

Click to expand...

right, personal preference as I said.

Dan_168 said:

BBQue said:

Dan_168 said:

Roses said:

Dan_168 said:

Mintmint said:

I'm super undecided on which of these two lenses to get, the batis 85 or sony 85.

It pretty much comes down to weather sealing and OSS on the Batis. Is this worth about $500 more?

I will be shooting outdoors mostly. I also shoot at night. I don't tripod, I'm a run and gun shooter, doing street/travel type shots. If the OSS makes a big enough difference I will probably go with Batis. I think it could be super handy in low light/night photography?

I'm wondering how much IBIS combined with OSS will help with my style of photography, vs just having the IBIS with the A7III + Sony 85 1.8 combo....

Click to expand...

This topic has been discussed so much here and everywhere, first of all, I am a 85GM owner, so I am not trying to justify my purchase and" defending" any of those lens here but purely my personal opinion.

Between the two, I would go or the FE 85 1.8, The Batis is nice but it's not worth the extra $$$, also I really don't like the strong "Cat'sEye" bokeh effect when shooting against strong light source, some people are perfectly fine with it but it's really annoying to my own eyes, also the FE 85 has a focus button and AF/MF button on the lens, really handy, OSS is not useful for me at all, one I have that on the body, two I hardly even urn it on, the way I use my 85mm lens really doesn't give me any benefits. but if that's important for you then the choice is obvious.

Since I like the Bokeh from the 85GM much better than these two so I went with the GM, but even if I don't own the GM, I would still go with the FE 1.8, I have nothing against Zeiss and I own 7 Zeiss lenses, just I found the FE 85 1.8 fit me better than the Batis 85, for some reason I am just not a fan of the entire Batis line,I sold my Batis 18 and 25 a while back too, again, just personal preference thing.

Click to expand...

GM 85 also has cat's eye bokeh. It's a physics thing with fast lenses shot wide open.

Click to expand...

Well, shot both and the Batis is has significantly more, that's simple fact if you ask anyone who own both. I guess it all comes down to how much is to much, again, a personal preference thing.

Click to expand...

Some also love the look of cat's eye bokeh. I am one of them. I find cat's eyes more pleasing and interesting than circular globs of out-of-focus highlights.

Click to expand...

right, personal preference as I said.

Click to expand...

Yes, but you referred to "quantity" of effect. I felt the need to add "quality" I really do have a strong dislike for these globular shapes and much prefer the cat's eyes.

Rishi from DPReview weighed in on this already:

RubberDials said:

RubberDials said:

DenImage said:

RubberDials said:

Here's a link to Lens Rentals testing of the FE85. (I wouldn't bother with Klaus/optical limits if I were you)

Click to expand...

Why, because only the Lens Rental's test supports your purchase of the Batis lens???

DXO also rated the Sony FE 85mm f1.8 better than the Batis, so we shouldn't bother with them either???

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Comp...8-Sony-FE-on-Sony-A7R-II__1818_1035_1536_1035

Den

Click to expand...

Are these rhetorical questions??? Or do you want me to answer them???

DenImage wrote:

That's up to you.

You have stated that we should ignore other reviews and only accept the Lens Rental bench test result, implying that other reviews are wrong without substantiating your claim.

Den

Click to expand...

They're not rhetorical questions then.

First of all you need to think more carefully about what you write. I said:

"For me the principal benefits of the Batis are the higher resolution and better flare control."

I didn't recommend that the OP chose the Batis, I explained why I preferred it and then gave detailed reasons why.

I did not imply 'other reviews are wrong' - I would not use this kind of language - and I didn't even mention DXOmark - you did. I only said 'I wouldn't bother with Photozone if I were you'.

There are two parts to lens testing; collecting the data and interpreting it. Both have to be done well. It doesn't matter how well someone collects data if they can't present it properly. DXOmark' perceptual megapixel rating is a case in point. They end up giving the impression to people like you that the FE85 is a better lens than the 85GM.

Similarly with Photozone - you don't realise that the Batis tested better in their review than the FE85 - presumably because you're going by his ludicrous 'star rating' at the end of the test rather than the LW/PH numbers he records.

Click to expand...

No I didn't go by Optical Limits star rating (I've never mentioned it). I did realise the Batis had slightly higher resolution, but IMO it certainly didn't "test" better. I went for the Sony for other reasons (smaller, lighter, lower vignetting, questionably better bokeh, less expensive...). Optically both lenses are as close as they get, the Batis has less LoCA, but is bigger and more expensive. I already own the 100mm STF, but wanted a smaller/lighter portrait lens for travel. The Sony FE 85mm f1.8 fulfills this requirement perfectly.

RubberDials said:

When you buy a lens you're not getting the lens that was tested in the review, so unless the lens has no sample variation the test is an approximation of what you'll get. Neither Photozone/Optical limits test more than one sample, which makes their tests anecdotal in my view.

Click to expand...

Really?, can you refer me to where it states they only test one lens?

RubberDials said:

Couple that with their user friendly but technically worthless star and perceptual megapixel ratings and I don't think they are much use to people looking to buy a lens.

Both also use Imatest, which is sensor dependent. With Imatest you are also testing the whole sensor stack including all optical filters and picking up any noise from the signal processing of the sensor as they are all in the chain, although they have nothing to do with the optics of the lens. Also the resolution limits of the sensor are effectively the resolution limits of the optics.

Click to expand...

I use an a7rii (which Optical Limits used in the test), so at the very least, the review is beneficial for anyone who owns an a7rii (or equivalent sensor) and looking to buy the tested lens.

RubberDials said:

Lens Rentals - as well as testing the glass only - tests ten samples and averages the curves. They also provide sample variation graphs so their tests give you the best possible idea of how your lens will perform. They also repair lenses and are more likely to know if a lens is damaged or faulty.

The crucial finding of the Lens Rental MTFs is the high contrast at 50lp/pm on the Batis and the 85GM. This makes those lenses more useful for future, denser sensors.

Click to expand...

I read reviews about lenses I can purchase and use on Cameras available today, not for cameras that haven't been created yet.

Den

Glenn Barber said:

Mintmint said:

I'm super undecided on which of these two lenses to get, the batis 85 or sony 85.

It pretty much comes down to weather sealing and OSS on the Batis. Is this worth about $500 more?

I will be shooting outdoors mostly. I also shoot at night. I don't tripod, I'm a run and gun shooter, doing street/travel type shots. If the OSS makes a big enough difference I will probably go with Batis. I think it could be super handy in low light/night photography?

I'm wondering how much IBIS combined with OSS will help with my style of photography, vs just having the IBIS with the A7III + Sony 85 1.8 combo....

Click to expand...

As I see that quite a few people here are into lens testing, I wanted to share my experience with doing the zeiss target testing of the corners with a Sony 85 1.8.

Doing wall tests I saw at 1.8 unusually dark and slightly smeared corners in the upper end of the frame. Initially I was going to return the lens as decentered. When I did the zeiss star tests and sent them to Jim Kasson, he pointed out that my lens looked pretty good but that the darkening was probably caused by the very fast shutter speed (1.8 in daylight) and my having EFSC turned on.

He was right, I repeated the test, and the upper corners brightened - and also got visibly sharper (no explanation for that yet).

Here's his link

https://blog.kasson.com/lens-screening-testing/examples/good-85-mm-ff-lens/

Click to expand...

Thanks for the hint that sounded like my Batis problem.

In the end after deactivating the EFCS the problem still exists.

My brandnew 85 1.8 Batis is sharper in the top than in the bottom. Problem can be verified by turning the camera 180deg in portrait or in landscape mode. The sharp side also changes, easily visible even in F4.0 on my „only“ 24MP a7III!

Lens is „defect“, will return it to Zeiss (bought it on Zeiss webshop) on monday. QC seems not better as with Sony, Zony and many others...

BTW: my Sigma 50 1.4 Art F-mount on a metabones doesn‘t show these problems, so it‘s not the camera’s sensor misaligned.

DenImage said:

RubberDials said:

RubberDials said:

DenImage said:

RubberDials said:

Here's a link to Lens Rentals testing of the FE85. (I wouldn't bother with Klaus/optical limits if I were you)

Click to expand...

Why, because only the Lens Rental's test supports your purchase of the Batis lens???

DXO also rated the Sony FE 85mm f1.8 better than the Batis, so we shouldn't bother with them either???

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Comp...8-Sony-FE-on-Sony-A7R-II__1818_1035_1536_1035

Den

Click to expand...

Are these rhetorical questions??? Or do you want me to answer them???

DenImage wrote:

That's up to you.

You have stated that we should ignore other reviews and only accept the Lens Rental bench test result, implying that other reviews are wrong without substantiating your claim.

Den

Click to expand...

They're not rhetorical questions then.

First of all you need to think more carefully about what you write. I said:

"For me the principal benefits of the Batis are the higher resolution and better flare control."

I didn't recommend that the OP chose the Batis, I explained why I preferred it and then gave detailed reasons why.

I did not imply 'other reviews are wrong' - I would not use this kind of language - and I didn't even mention DXOmark - you did. I only said 'I wouldn't bother with Photozone if I were you'.

There are two parts to lens testing; collecting the data and interpreting it. Both have to be done well. It doesn't matter how well someone collects data if they can't present it properly. DXOmark' perceptual megapixel rating is a case in point. They end up giving the impression to people like you that the FE85 is a better lens than the 85GM.

Similarly with Photozone - you don't realise that the Batis tested better in their review than the FE85 - presumably because you're going by his ludicrous 'star rating' at the end of the test rather than the LW/PH numbers he records.

Click to expand...

No I didn't go by Optical Limits star rating (I've never mentioned it). I did realise the Batis had slightly higher resolution, but IMO it certainly didn't "test" better. I went for the Sony for other reasons (smaller, lighter, lower vignetting, questionably better bokeh, less expensive...). Optically both lenses are as close as they get, the Batis has less LoCA, but is bigger and more expensive. I already own the 100mm STF, but wanted a smaller/lighter portrait lens for travel. The Sony FE 85mm f1.8 fulfills this requirement perfectly.

DenImage said:

When you buy a lens you're not getting the lens that was tested in the review, so unless the lens has no sample variation the test is an approximation of what you'll get. Neither Photozone/Optical limits test more than one sample, which makes their tests anecdotal in my view.

Click to expand...

Really?, can you refer me to where it states they only test one lens?

DenImage said:

Couple that with their user friendly but technically worthless star and perceptual megapixel ratings and I don't think they are much use to people looking to buy a lens.

Both also use Imatest, which is sensor dependent. With Imatest you are also testing the whole sensor stack including all optical filters and picking up any noise from the signal processing of the sensor as they are all in the chain, although they have nothing to do with the optics of the lens. Also the resolution limits of the sensor are effectively the resolution limits of the optics.

Click to expand...

I use an a7rii (which Optical Limits used in the test), so at the very least, the review is beneficial for anyone who owns an a7rii (or equivalent sensor) and looking to buy the tested lens.

DenImage said:

Lens Rentals - as well as testing the glass only - tests ten samples and averages the curves. They also provide sample variation graphs so their tests give you the best possible idea of how your lens will perform. They also repair lenses and are more likely to know if a lens is damaged or faulty.

The crucial finding of the Lens Rental MTFs is the high contrast at 50lp/pm on the Batis and the 85GM. This makes those lenses more useful for future, denser sensors.

Click to expand...

I read reviews about lenses I can purchase and use on Cameras available today, not for cameras that haven't been created yet.

Den

Click to expand...

Den, all three of your posts to me have been slightly confrontational, especially the first one in which you suggested I was only interested in tests that validate my lens choices. You can think this but it isn't okay to say it.

Similarly your comments:

Really?, can you refer me to where it states they only test one lens?

I read reviews about lenses I can purchase and use on Cameras available today, not for cameras that haven't been created yet.

seem to me to be also unnecessarily antagonistic- especially in the context that I had not personally addressed you and had not even made a recommendation to the OP, just explained why I chose the lens I did.

This is an even-tempered forum and I see that you only just joined, so perhaps you're used to a more aggressive debate, but I note that you haven't jumped down the throat of anyone else.

I'm happy to discuss this further but only politely. Regards.

Mintmint said:

I'm super undecided on which of these two lenses to get, the batis 85 or sony 85.

It pretty much comes down to weather sealing and OSS on the Batis. Is this worth about $500 more?

I will be shooting outdoors mostly. I also shoot at night. I don't tripod, I'm a run and gun shooter, doing street/travel type shots. If the OSS makes a big enough difference I will probably go with Batis. I think it could be super handy in low light/night photography?

I'm wondering how much IBIS combined with OSS will help with my style of photography, vs just having the IBIS with the A7III + Sony 85 1.8 combo....

Click to expand...

I have never shot with the Batis, but I will make 2 comments:

1.) how much better than the Sony do you really need, as far as I can tell it is pretty close to flawless.

2.) I am not too impressed by the Batis bokeh (from samples) so would only really consider the Batis if I was mainly shooting landscapes etc.